VOL. 36 We do not take possession of our ideas, but are possessed by them They master us and force us into the arena, Where, like gladiators, we must fight for them."—HEINE. The Arena OCTOBER, 1906 No. 203 THE COSTLINESS OF WAR. OF ALL games the BY WILLIAM RESTELLE. of war is game the most historical. It has been played with zest and zeal by mankind in every age and under every sun. From the time that ape-like man abandoned his arborical life in the forests and entered the keener struggle for existence on the plains and among the hills, from the time when society was first conceived in family and clan, right down through the unnumbered years until the present day when nature yields up her wealth at the magic touch of science, when society has become a highly complex organism, war has been a most serious business, and, at the same time, a most engrossing pastime of men. To the idealist who persists in believing in the goodness of humanity, to the philosopher who reasons of morality and brotherhood, to even the ordinary student who is not devoid of sentiment, the pages of history must present a saddening spectacle. The story of society must be to them a hideous nightmare, a chaos of terrible dreams, something they would fain banish from their minds, something they would like to forget, but cannot. And who does not share the feelings of these gentle souls? What is history after all but an oft-reiterated tale of strife and discord, of murder and carnage, of people yielding to the bitterest hatred and the fiercest passions, in short, of the devil fighting the arch-fiend, and the arch-fiend fighting the devil? It is answered that all this has not been without a hidden purpose, that the struggle of man with man is a blessing in disguise, that war is a manly sport contributing much to the utlimate welfare of humanity. There is doubtless a measure of truth in such statements as these. War has not been an unmitigated evil; it has served a very useful and perhaps necessary function in the development of civilization. We contend, however, that war has fulfilled its mission, except possibly in certain parts of Asia and Africa, which must yet be brought under the white man's government. We go further and say that a perpetuation of war into this twentieth century will not mean progress, but retrogression. A short consideration of the costliness of war in modern times, not only from an economic, but from an ethical and political point-of-view, ought to convince the most ardent supporter of militarism that nothing more is to be gained from war, at least, from war between civilized nations. In reckoning the cost of war the first item to be dealt with is the annual expenditure of the nations in maintaining their vast armies and armaments, in building fortifications, in deepening harbors and building docks specially for warships, in constructing strategic railways and meeting the expenses of the war department at home. The budgets of the various powers give one an approximate idea of the amount spent for military purposes every year, but it is somewhat difficult to determine exactly what sum is devoted to the branches of expenditure enumerated above. The army and naval estimates of the United Kingdom, for example, include the pension allowances, those of Germany and the United States do not; the maintenance of the Department of War at Washington is charged to the civil accounts, and the cost of fortification, harbor work and strategic railroads are charged in the European budgets sometimes to the Ministry of War, sometimes to the Ministry of Public Works. It is sufficient for our purposes, however, to simply quote the expenditures charged to the army and navy without wading through the ramifications of the fiscal systems of the world in order to insure absolute accuracy. For the fiscal year 1903-4 the war budgets of the nineteen European states show a total normal expenditure of $1,300,000,000; that of the United States $217,991,512; that of Japan $29,544,600, a total of $1,547,536,112. A goodly sum, this, for Christendom to be spending every year on instruments of destruction. The next item on our war-bill is the direct expenditures of the contending parties in prosecuting a war-the amount of money they spend in mobilizing, equipping, transporting, provisioning and paying their soldiers, supplying them with all the munitions of war, and maintaining constant communication with the field of operations. The direct outlay involved in even a petty war is necessarily very large. According to M. Bloch, an efficient fighting man cannot be maintained in the field of battle on less than eight shillings a day, certainly not if the commisariat department is as corrupt as was that of the British in Cape Colony during the South African war. The Crimean war cost the five powers concerned $1,700,000,000; the Franco-Prussian war made a hole in the treasuries at Paris and Berlin of over $1,000,000,000, which sum does not include the $1,000,000,000 indemnity paid by France to Germany or the $50,200,000 levied by the Prussian troops from certain towns and cities of France. Mr. Edward Atkinson has shown that in the eight years from 1898 to 1905 the American people will have spent in war and warfare $1,200,000,000. The amount of money, however, actually taken from the national exchequer for the prosecution of war is only a fraction of the economic loss really entailed. Nations could well afford to play this game of life-and-death for any number of years if the operations of armies were confined within certain areas outside the pale of civilization, and the only expense incurred was the maintenance of warriors in the field. But we have to do with war as it is, and war as it is involves a loss to mankind which baffles calculation. To the direct loss of war resulting from the diversion of public revenues to military purposes must be added the destruction of property, the damage done to industry and commerce, the economic value of the men drawn from the field of productive industry into the unproductive ranks of the army, the economic value of the workpeople employed to support the soldiery and fit out armaments, and the displacement of capital. These constitute what are called the indirect losses. Let us examine them in greater detail. In modern warfare the deliberate devastation of an enemy's country is not carried on to nearly the same extent as formerly. Non-combatants, at the present day, enjoy much more immunity from the vicissitudes of war than did their ancestors, thanks to the modern com- cumstances. The first is a more immisariat system. Armies in the days portant item. When 100,000 men, the gone by were expected to live on the best in the land, are withdrawn from the country in which they were fighting, and ranks of producers, and placed in the they did so with little consideration for ranks of non-producers, the country sufthe inhabitants whose hospitality was fers a positive loss. Sir Robert Giffen enforced. Though the conditions of war- places the economic value of the average fare have improved greatly during the workingman at $400 a year, Mr. Edward last century, property still suffers con- Atkinson at $700. The first estimate siderable depreciation and a no small applies to English workmen, the second amount of destruction during the course to American workmen. The monetary of a campaign. Besides the loss suffered value of Continental workmen is lower by real estate and private property of than that of English workmen, so let us various kinds, there is much damage place the average worth of European and done to roads, to crops, to fortifications American workmen at $400, a figure and to armaments, all of which must be which all will admit is an injustice to the renewed after the war. workmen of Christendom. Now, in case of war, let us suppose that each of the contending parties put into the field 100,000 volunteer troops for one year; that makes 200,000 men engaged in blowing each other's brains out who would otherwise be occupied in growing corn, mining coal and manufacturing goods to the value of $80,000,000. But if instead of 200,000 men campaigning for one year, there be 900,000, inclusive of regulars, fighting for one and a half years as in the late Russo-Japanese war, 1,800,000 as in the Franco-Prussian war, or 3,400,000 fighting for four years, nearly all of whom were volunteers, as in the American civil war, one begins to get a real insight into the costliness of war. But the nations' industrial loss does not end here. It is agreed by economists that for every soldier in the field there must be another person employed in productive industry in his support. Thus, if 200,000 men are engaged in war, there must be 200,000 more men, women or children engaged exclusively in supporting that war. That makes 400,000 people whose labor is diverted to the nefarious business of butchery and plunder, and whose annual economic value is $160,000,000. It must be pointed out, however, that this loss is more apparent than real. A portion of this $160,000,000 would have been consumed by the soldiery under ordinary circumstances and cannot, therefore, be The loss to a country from the destruction of property is small compared to the loss sustained by industry and commerce. A war between two great industrial states always has disastrous effects on trade. How else could it be? Immediately on the outbreak of hostilities, what happens? Mobilization takes place. Volunteers, the militia, and maybe the reserves are called upon to take leave of friends and home, and march forth to battle in some distant land. The best men throughout the country-those of superior brain and brawn-are snatched away from field and workshop and mine, made to shoulder a musket, shipped away from their native soil to fight for the devil only knows what. These men, be it emphasized, are withdrawn from the field of productive industry and given an occupation which adds not to the wealth of the world, but which consumes it like an insatiable monster. Now note three things: (1) that these men cease to produce wealth, (2) that they do not cease to consume it, (3) that they positively destroy it. We have considered the third. In regard to the second it has been estimated by Stein that it costs three times as much to provision an army in the field as it does the same body of men at home. That is to say, a soldier campaigning consumes three times as much wealth as he does under ordinary cir In reckoning the cost of war the first item to be dealt with is the annual expenditure of the nations in maintaining their vast armies and armaments, in building fortifications, in deepening harbors and building docks specially for warships, in constructing strategic railways and meeting the expenses of the war department at home. The budgets of the various powers give one an approximate idea of the amount spent for military purposes every year, but it is somewhat difficult to determine exactly what sum is devoted to the branches of expenditure enumerated above. The army and naval estimates of the United Kingdom, for example, include the pension allowances, those of Germany and the United States do not; the maintenance of the Department of War at Washington is charged to the civil accounts, and the cost of fortification, harbor work and strategic railroads are charged in the European budgets sometimes to the Ministry of War, sometimes to the Ministry of Public Works. It is sufficient for our purposes, however, to simply quote the expenditures charged to the army and navy without wading through the ramifications of the fiscal systems of the world in order to insure absolute accuracy. For the fiscal year 1903-4 the war budgets of the nineteen European states show a total normal expenditure of $1,300,000,000; that of the United States $217,991,512; that of Japan $29,544,600, a total of $1,547,536,112. A goodly sum, this, for Christendom to be spending every year on instruments of destruction. The next item on our war-bill is the direct expenditures of the contending parties in prosecuting a war-the amount of money they spend in mobilizing, equipping, transporting, provisioning and paying their soldiers, supplying them with all the munitions of war, and maintaining constant communication with the field of operations. The direct outlay involved in even a petty war is necessarily very large. According to M. Bloch, an efficient fighting man cannot be maintained in the field of battle on less than eight shillings a day, certainly not if the commisariat department is as corrupt as was that of the British in Cape Colony during the South African war. The Crimean war cost the five powers concerned $1,700,000,000; the Franco-Prussian war made a hole in the treasuries at Paris and Berlin of over $1,000,000,000, which sum does not include the $1,000,000,000 indemnity paid by France to Germany or the $50,200,000 levied by the Prussian troops from certain towns and cities of France. Mr. Edward Atkinson has shown that in the eight years from 1898 to 1905 the American people will have spent in war and warfare $1,200,000,000. The amount of money, however, actually taken from the national exchequer for the prosecution of war is only a fraction of the economic loss really entailed. Nations could well afford to play this game of life-and-death for any number of years if the operations of armies were confined within certain areas outside the pale of civilization, and the only expense incurred was the maintenance of warriors in the field. But we have to do with war as it is, and war as it is involves a loss to mankind which baffles calculation. To the direct loss of war resulting from the diversion of public revenues to military purposes must be added the destruction of property, the damage done to industry and commerce, the economic value of the men drawn from the field of productive industry into the unproductive ranks of the army, the economic value of the workpeople employed to support the soldiery and fit out armaments, and the displacement of capital. These constitute what are called the indirect losses. Let us examine them in greater detail. In modern warfare the deliberate devastation of an enemy's country is not carried on to nearly the same extent as formerly. Non-combatants, at the present day, enjoy much more immunity from the vicissitudes of war than did their |